I think there is a lot of middle ground somewhere between the claims that want to make Assange a saint or a terrorist. First of all, legally, it's not clear, at least in my mind whether he's violated the law. With Manning, most definitely, and he could probably be charged with espionage. But, with Assange, it's more in the gray area. He didn't hack into US computers to obtain the information. Assange could be considered a publisher. Can we try to charge an Australian citizen under the Espionage act? I suppose we could try. But, in my opinion, I would rather we not extradite Assange. Again, just my opinion, but Australia is a great ally, and we should be sensitive to any potential hard feelings that could arise. What's done is done. In certain cases, I would support the American media publishing classified documents, but intent is important. With Assange, he seems biased, with an axe to grind, and doesn't appear to have a positive intent. It seems more of a personal vendetta, to embarass. Further, with threats that he will publish sensitive documents, he may not publish otherwise, for his own self-interest does appear to be extortion. What is more concerning than Assange, at least in my mind, is legislation designed to restrict the press. For example, I was reading about the Shield Act, "Lieberman’s proposed solution to WikiLeaks could have implications for journalists reporting on some of the more unsavory practices of the intelligence community. For example, former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega was once a paid CIA asset. Would reporting that now be a crime?"
Nice pivot. I accept your concession that the leaked documents don't expose lies so much as they reveal "truth". Now you just need to be able to reconcile the "truths" revealed in the leaked documents are also classified government secrets. Distribution of "truth" that has the distinguishing attribute of being a classified government secret is very much like having sex with someone who has the distinguishing attribute of being under 18. One is legal, the other will land you in jail. Quit crying about it. As usual Rebecca, I mostly agree. Not being a lawyer(perhaps law-dude can weigh in), it is my understanding that intent plays a very large part in if,how, and when a law is enforced. Given the apparent intent of Assange, I don't see it being an overly large stretch to apply the 1917 espionage act to the guy. I agree, however, that the thrust of the investigation needs to be on Manning and those like him.
Wikileaks is a terrorist new best friend... I hope they charge that clown with treason... I hope they send this scumbag to the U.S, he has released locations of important places, for terrorist to attack.... They need to give this scumbag the death penalty for all the lives he put in danger to gain his 15 minutes of fame... This scumbag has a laid out a blueprint for another 9/11, any American who defends this scumbag needs to grow the F up!!! Freedom of speech is NOT to be confused with inciting acts of terrorism, espionage, and treason... Publishing secret documents is a crime, learn the meaning of freedom of speech before you make such an ignorant comment.... The OP should be ashamed of himself asking people to aid this criminal in putting countless lives in danger, Why don't you give him your own damn hosting??? This scumbag laid out a blueprint of targets for terrorist to hit, and the OP has some nerve to ask us to aid this scumbag in killing innocent people.... Some people have no shame....
Seems you're reading different things from me as the reality is NOT ONE person has been harmed in any way by the leaks and that is rhetoric bounced around by dissenters. Point them out, who, what, where? Do something every other member of the press is dying to see. He's embarrassed your government with the truth and they're pulling the wool over your eyes with crap, nothin new there.
This scumbag has released a blueprint of important places for terrorist to attack. Can you say change of plans??? Terrorist are licking their chops with this list....
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/world/24assange.html?_r=4&hp You are starting to sound like you are smoking from the same garden Breeze Wood is. The guy is directly responsible for getting people killed.
Some people just talk from the back of their you know what...I wouldn't be surprised if BushRanger is an Aussie and only sticking up for this scumbag, only because he is an Aussie also...
That link for me was a log in page, but I found the article by Googling your text. Actually, I wasn't aware of this in that type of detail. It does seem inexcusable, hard to see why Assange would be considered as some type of hero.
Not hard to see why he's a hero to some on here, when you're looking through the eyes of a terrorist or someone sympathetic to terrorist... You see he isn't leaking any terrorist or Russian documents... I wonder why? because he knows he's a dead man if he did, way to abuse the freedoms given to him, now he wants to blackmail with more leaks? what a joke.... Anyways, he is behind bars for raping two women while they were sleeping, talk about having a nasty fetish. Hero? nah the sleeping rapist is more like it....
Why can't people just get a paper route instead of building a website to try to kill people.........just doesn't make sense at all.
Not only will the stolen intelligence likely get those guys killed, it will make any afghan who might consider helping us think twice. Had it been an Arab, Paki, or Afghan who had helped convey the intelligence documents to the Taliban, they would be sitting in Guantanamo right now, no question about it. The idea that we would hold off prosecution of this guy because he is white, or because he gave the documents to other people beside the Taliban, or because he publicized other unrelated documents seems ridiculous. I know it seems odd to call someone a terrorist for something like this, but terrorist is the name we give those who take acts of war without acting on behalf of a given nation state. The more I think about it, given his actions and his intent, it may be very appropriate to classify him as an enemy combatant.
If he has so much support down under, then why the hell is he hiding in Britain??? Way for you to try and spin a story, The Aussie attorney general only stated that he is entitled to stay in Australia and receive consul just like any other Aussie is entitled to, just like Charles Manson was entitle to an attorney, the same applies in the land down under... Nice try though... Also where you get that 90% of Aussies support this scumbag??? When did a few dozen comments on a blog represent the country of Australia?????????????? lol I kinda thought you had some sense of right and wrong, from reading some of your recent post's, but by you putting words into the Aussie attorney general mouth and making up stats, I can see you have fallen far off your rocker... Can't take you serious anymore...
As far as the rape charge, I think what happened (at least according to what I've read) was that he was having sex with a woman, and his condom broke. At that point, the woman withdrew consent for sex, but he continued. I haven't read anything about the women being asleep. Whatever the case may be, the alleged rape(s) should have nothing to do with Wikileaks. If we know what Afghan informers were named in Wikileaks, we should safely relocate them, as quickly as possible, with a brand new identity. I'm wondering if it would be possible for Wikileaks (Assange) to be held legally responsible for the financial costs of this? I don't believe we're holding off prosecution for any of the reasons mentioned above. I think we're not sure yet on the best course of action. The only possible legal action I've heard mentioned is charging Assange under the Espionage Act, but even that's debatable:
Civil damages after criminal I would say. Espionage Act debatable, enemy combatant less so. From the times article: The guy is basically waging war against the US. It fits every definition of terrorism that has been used in the last 9 years.
That's because you're looking for what you want to see, coming from the angle he's your enemy. If you look at the page link I sent, there's actually 4,335 comments, something very unusual with a normality of between 300-500 comments and most of them are FOR Julian's actions and against our government's stupidity. Our Prime Minister announced he had broken the law but was forced to renounce the statement or explain what law he broke, which she still hasn't. http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/41914.html Julian Assange is not your friend I'm not making up stories there, just reporting the facts. Unlike you, making up rape stories because you haven't actually read what he's being charged for. JULIAN had CONSENTUAL SEX with 2 girls, during which the condom broke and he continued. The actual warrant says SEX CRIMES, no rape mentioned anywhere except the headlines, and that's only because THAT makes it a story. The girls said they didn't want to press charges but some right-wing politician has forced it upon them. Now go read again, your last post shows you're talking out of your hat, not me.
Just thought I'd share another well written piece. You could always add your comments to, maybe that may tip the scales a little your way but most are at the 90% in favour mark. I think that's because the reporters don't want to put themselves out of a job and if this is illegal, so will be everything any reporter tries to report. They will all become unemployed and freedom of speech will have taken 20 steps backwards. Assange: Australian of the year?
Bushranger, reportedly, it wasn't consensual sex after the condom broke. BTW, do you have any credible sources with statements from the women that they didn't want to press charges but were being coerced into it?
I've read so much about this that I can't find the link I was referring to. I definately read it and will post it when I find it. But I found this one and it seems to be the best explanation of the whole event that i've found. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B669H20101207
While I was waiting for your response I found this. It appears to be about the same as your article, and it's probably a good one since it seems unbiased as well. Miss A: The two go out for dinner, return to the apartment and have sex during which a condom breaks. She would later tell police that Assange used his body weight to hold her down during sex and that she was a victim of unlawful coercion. Miss W: Calls Assange and they meet in Stockholm. They go by train to her hometown and to her apartment, where they have sex. According to her testimony to police, Assange wore a condom. Miss W later tells police that Assange that morning had unprotected sex with her while she was still asleep. It sounds like they all have casual sex and wear condoms so they don't transmit diseases or get pregnant. But, it's true, Miss A may not have gone to police without Miss W. It sounds like Miss W initiated the idea of going to the police, and wanted to file a complaint, and is also concerned she may have caught something, and wants Assange to at least undergo an HIV test. Then, when reporting this to police, the female interviewing officer recognizes it as rape. Afterwards, the chief prosecutor reduces it to minor sexual offenses. Then, the claimants appeal, and an arrest warrant is issued for further questioning. The statement by the women, "The accusations were not set up by the Pentagon or anybody else," she added. "The responsibility for what happened to me and the other girl lies with a man with a twisted view of women, who has a problem accepting the word 'no.' " It's a shame that they feel that they need to defend themselves with such a statement. I was kind of surprised to see an article on the Australian Herald that appeared to be demonizing the women. I think Wikileaks supporters should be careful as well in this regard. Really, the police or courts will decide the merits of the case.
Why should these women be worried about sexually transmitted diseases. Its not like Assange has a lot of unprotected sex with strange women. Bah. If Assange's supporters aren't worried about the lives of a couple hundred Afghans who will likely be killed over Assanges disclosures, they sure as hell don't give a crap about these two women. Collateral damage.